I agree that the smaller the business the greater taxation is going to have on hiring or laying off employees as a second order effect. However, it is demand that inherently drives growth not the bump or decrease in the tax rate. But if a company is operating at a profit the demand of the product and/or service will determine the number of employees more than any other factor. The tax rate will be felt more directly in the profits, wages and price of...

Any profitable company will create jobs when there is an increase in demand, and will eventually decrease jobs when there is a decrease in demand.
If the 'rich' or 'corporations' are given tax cuts, it will NOT result in them taking the extra money and creating jobs independent of demand. If the demand doesn't change the number of jobs won't change. Companies and businesses don't just look at a extra cash and say "LET'S SPEND IT!!!" Nope, they stock it away...

...
Anybody wonder if Scott Forstall pushed iMap to be released in iOS when recommended by others to wait until it was flushed out more?
If it got significantly heated and Scott threw a hissy fit against all others' advice (including Cook)... then I could see that as a breaking point (on top of the attitude and difficulty he was in working with others.)
Just wondering......

Well, if inflation continues to be positive and Apple's stock continues to hold steady (inflation adjusted) or increase (or even decrease as long as it decreases less than the amount of inflation increases), then I guess Apple's long-term mean stock price wouldn't be finite. Hard to imagine in reality, but mathematically it is certainly possible. Of course it will always be finite when measured, but as long as the measurement isn't done at infinity it won't...

No. I was referring to LOLN. Regression toward the mean is another beast, I agree. And I agree completely with what you are saying (you'll see that in my original post), I state that there is no reason to believe that the Apple stock is more or less than 1,000 for Apple. I just stated that one could say that the Apple stock will not continue to rise indefinitely if it has a finite mean. This statement is true, and the truth in the statement does have to do...

ko024, while I agree that the term is probably misused, and may have been misused this time as well. There is still a relation to the "law of large numbers" and the statement that Apple will plateau (ie will not rise indefinitely.) The relation is that if make the reasonable assumption that the Apple's average stock price (over it's entire existence... future and past) is finite then it will "plateau" at some point. I'm not saying that point is higher or lower...

Nope, it won't confirm what you say... why? Because now that iOS users have turn-by-turn navigation, Google is forced to compete by adding it in themselves (something they might not have done without Apple giving users the solution build-in.) You might be right, but having Google offer it in the future is not an clear indication that you are right.